tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN June 28, 2016 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
called reliance. traveler which is an ancient authoritative manual of sharia law. i open to the page that says jihad. jihad means to war against non-muslims, and it explains where the etymology of it is drawn from. we could go through several different aspects of it, whether it's penalties for apovertyys, inequality against women, inequality against muslims and so forth. i think, mr. chairman, the reason this is relevant it's not andy mccarthy's view of what islamism is. this is a manual that in the front of it they thought it was important enough to include the endorsement of the al czar research academy, basically the sharia faculty at the seat of sunni islamic learning since the
tenth century. it's also endorsed by the international institute of islamic thought which is the muslim brotherhood think tank that's been operating in the united states, i believe, since the early 1980s. there are other endorsements as well, but the point is that this political ideology which is radical in the united states because it is would -- it would supplant our constitution since its core tenets are antithetical to our constitution, so to me that's radical, whether you're -- you know, whether you want to blow up a bridge to get it done or not. if you want to supplant the united states constitution with a totalitarian legal code and societal framework, that's pretty radical. there's an awful lot of people who buy on to this to one degree or another. some percentage of them will
become jihadists. some larger percentage of them will create enclaves or safe spaces, i guess that's the -- the popular common term, right, safe spaces for this ideology to take root and to grow, and the forcible commands in it and the bellicose interpretation of it is something that is preached and endorsed by very influential scholars in this belief system so it's a shame that we -- that it has enough religious tenets to it, the oneness of allah, the duty to pray and so on, that we allow it to cloak itself in the guise of religion rather than what it actually is which is a totalitarian political philosophy, an ideology, but i think we make a big mistake when
we underestimate the hold that it has on a group as big at 1.6 billion people. >> and dr. jasser, if i understood you correctly, it was your testimony that we duo a disservice to the american muslim community when we lump in peaceful muslims who share our values with the islamists who as you've written about are waging a war for the soul of islam. is that a fair understanding? >> yes, sir. i think that it's too easy to -- if people ask where are the voices of moderate islam, there's been no urgency. it's time that muslims wake up, that there's an urgency for us to speak out, not just against the tactic but against the root cause, and our muslim reform movement is trying to duo that. it's a bipartisan effort to try to lay how the what are the ideas that make us muslims that believe in the faith of islam that separate us from this global massive political movement islamism.
large parties, and at the core is this identification of the islamic state. the reason isis is re youthing to the level in and growing up in the country in the west, end up wanting to die for the identification in the islamic state. the only counter to that is this whack of mole of countering extremism is starting to teach our kids that it would be much more preferential to die for america. until we engage programs that duo that we're going to continue this whack a mole program. >> dr. jasser, i thank you for your courage in defending truth at risk and at knowing risk of great personal vilification and even personal risk. that is a powerful and important demonstration of courage. >> thank you. >> you know, when senator graham was asking his questions i found one exchange with mireally rema
in that senator graham asked if there were radical imams in the united states and the testimony was she had never heard of any radical imams in the united states who had sympathies with al qaeda or isis. i found that truly an astonishing statement, although i would note it was a statement entirely consistent with the purge that mr. haney testified about. the obama administration has undertaken because one. things the purge did is, and i quote, removed references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator. so she was testifying consistent with this purge. i wanted to ask some of the other witnesses on this panel if you share miss kara's view of never heard of a radical imam in the united states who embraces or sympathizes, that was senator graham's exact question, with isis or government.
i know you went undercover at cair. dub encounter -- >> well, first of all -- >> please turn your microphone on. >> well, we can't forget and i'll go into some current imams. anwar alauch which w-- awlaki a time at cair sirrage wahaj consistently talks about the implementation of sharia law which is no different than the ideology of al qaeda or isis. mean that reads their magazines, anyone that studies their ideology they are constantly quoting islamic law from the hadith hadiths, from the koran. they are constantly quoting that. no different than the imams like imam sirrage wahaj. we have a problem that is much
bigger than we're willing to suspect. >> when omar mateen called the 911, here's a portion of it. what is your name? may name is i pledge aliege as to aback bahardi. >> what is your name? >> i pledge allegiance to abu bahardi. that's what the tape recording showed. however, when the attorney general release it had, the words that were omitted were abu badr al balgdy of the islamic state and two sentences later, abu bakr al baghdadi and two seconds later the islamic state.
what does it say to you that the department of justice is sanitizing and erasing the statement of who the orlando terrorist was pledging his aliege ants to? >> it means if we don't change course we can expect more tragedies like what happened in orlando. >> and that would be consistent also with the purge explicitly removing, quote, references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator. would you put that in the same category? >> yes, sir. >> all right. mr. mccarthy, i want to talk about -- you talked about the threat of islamism, and i want to talk about some of the symbols -- some of the evidence we had in terror attack after attack attack because some of my democratic colleagues have suggested this is simply about the use of a word or two or even as my friend senator coops says
three letters ism and i would suggest the only reasonable conclusion from this shearing this deliberate and willful blindness is costing american lives over and over again. whether you look at little rock or fort worth or chattanooga or san bernardino, over and over again we see warning signs. over and over again the obama administration has evidence of rads call islamic terrorism and over and over it doesn't act to prevent it. i would mention nadal hasan. the obama administration knew he had been in electronic communication with the radical islamic cleric anwar al awlaki just made reference to. the obama administration knew that he had asked about the possible justifications for waging jihad against his fellow soldiers and yet the administration did nothing and nadal hasan murdered 14 innocent
souls. in your view is a soldier communicating with a radical islamic cleric anwar al awlaki asking the per missability of waging jihad, presenting powerpoint presentations and leading out what he thought was a koranic move in your view is that something that should have moved the administration to action? >> they are highly significant red flags and to dismiss them because it was consistent with his research, as i understand was the main reason, is reckless. >> and indeed one of his fellow officers said that part of the reason they did not act against him was political correctness. let's look at another example. the tsarnaev brothers in boston. the administration knew that russia had pointed out that the tsarnaev brothers had traveled to muslim chechen and dagestan provinces. he was interviewed by the fbi, the older brother. russian authorities a second time notified the administration
that they believed them to be religious extremists. the elder brother returned to chechnya and met with chechen terror-related groups. he posted on youtube a public call to jihad, and yet the administration had stopped watching him at that time and did not see the public call to jihad and that ended up culminating in the two brothers setting off pressure cooker bombs at the boston marathon and murdered three people and injured approximately 180 others. are those once again significant red flags that ought to be met with a serious law enforcement and national security response to prevent acts of terrorism? >> i believe they are, and i think they underscore the problem with treating ideology as if it were not a trigger to violence. >> and the final example i'll focus on is omar mateen.
omar mateen was interviewed by the fbi, not once, not twice but three times. omar mateen had told his co-workers that he was involved with both al qaeda and hezbollah. omar mateen had watched videos of the radical cleric anwar al awlaki, one connecting theme of a number of these terrorists. omar mateen was interviewed one time because of his relationship with the first american born suicide bomber who died in syria in 2004 and there's evidence to indicate they may have attended the same mosque. are those, again, the sorts of red flags that ought to trigger serious law enforcement and national security scrutiny to prevent terrorist attacks? >> yes, they are. ? >> is it a reasonable inference in your experience having spent
nearly two decades as a prosecutor that the administration's scrubbing, refusal to acknowledge the existence of jihad or radical islam as this chart shows, literally erasing it from their training materials, has some connection to this administration over and over and over again having serious evidence of radical islamic terrorism and yet not acting to prevent terrorist attacks on the united states soil? >> i think so, and, again, i think it's incredibly reckless to take the position that because ideology is constitutionally protected to have such that you can't prosecute someone for having it, that you, therefore, drop investigative efforts and drop intelligence efforts on the theory that ideology is simply something we don't need to worry about. >> thank you, mr. mccarthy.
>> senator coops. >> i'm going to defer to senator blumenthal for the second round. >> senator blumenthal, i didn't see you. >> well, i noticed you were very absorbed in your questions, as you should be, and thank you for having the hearing. i'm interested in light of the statements of allegiance that were made by the san bernardino and the orlando killers and the credit taken by isis for at least the orlando massacre, what objective evidence there is that isis is inspiring or support in terrorist extremists here, and i think there is evidence of it, if only the evidence that has
been made public. i understand there is other evidence as well. it troubles me greatly and i think the nation has to be more vigilant and vigorous in countering the efforts of isis to inspire and support extremist violence here, and extremist violence takes a lot of forms, but killing 49 people with an assault weapon qualifies for me as violence and when it's done with a claim of allegiance to isis then i think it raises some red flags, so let me ask you, mr. mccarthy, and others what objective evidence you see of isis inspiring or supporting
this kind of violence? >> senator, i think that the -- that isis, like al qaeda, like other terrorist organizations is less important than the ideology which transcends them all and will outlast them all and is what is actually the catalizing nis here. now specifically with respect to isis we know that the organization has made it quite clear that it would like to see jihadists in place in the united states and elsewhere in the west commit acts of terrorism that they can, you know, attribute to isis and then take advantage of, but i would suggest to you that it's the -- it's the ideology more than the organization that -- that is doing the inspiring. >> also, i would go a step further and just to point out how serious of a problem this
is. we could kill every member of isis tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect the global islamic movement. it wouldn't affect the global jih jihad. it would slow it down until it caught up. we could kill every member of al qaeda tomorrow. if we don't address strategies and implement poll tis to address sharia and the spread of sharia doctrine, like dr. jasser said, we're playing whack a mole with jihadi groups. it won't end. >> i think we need to be careful. clearly where there's a conspiracy, law enforcement should track down everybody who is involved in the conspiracy, but what we have to understand about terrorist methodology is the appeal for anywhere -- anyone anywhere to duo something is an act of desperation, right? it's a reflection of their weakness, not their strength, so we have to be very careful when we talk about somebody who
answers that appeal to not duo what isis wants us to duo which is to make believe that they actually are that strong and that there actually is a connection and this person was actually isis rather someone who was reaching out to get him in the newspaper and on tv and whether we reward the basis whether they are reaching out to isis like omar mateen or like white supremacist groups like dylan roof is doing you're giving them an opportunity to be famous and to be a soldier of whatever the cause is and we need to be very moderate in how we talk about these things so we're focusing on real conspiracies because then as we've seen co-conspirators can go out and commit other crimes but if we're talking about someone just claiming allegiance with no actual connection i think we should be very careful in actually attributing that to the group that they claim. >> senator blumenthal? >> yes, mr. jasser.
if i can address something that's very important is that, you know, isis taking credit is sort of like the rooster taking credit for the morning in that they will put the virus out there. these are not lone wolves. it's a global ideology that taps into vulnerable individuals for whatever reason they may be vulnerable but the root cause is -- and i think if you look why domestic policy against radical islam is also connected to our foreign policy, same thing. the vacuum in syria. you cannot get rid of isis in syria without also ending the assad regime. the two are two evils that feed off of one another. secular autocracy and the relationship of this battle within the house of islam is a cancer that rooted in syria right now and is spreading all over the planet as they seek recruits and will take and try to mobilize their recruits into the -- they tap into this fervor of political islam, the aloomingance to the islamic state and identity and until we
have a so heernt domestic and foreign policy with a unifying vision and our role and what americans' role should be in the battle in the house of islam this will recur and recur. dictators like to see radical islam as a foil in order to press their populations throughout the middle east. >> i understand, mr. haney, were you going to make a point? i saw you leaning forward. >> yes, thank you. during my time as a law enforcement officer we conducted what we call idso, intelligence-driven special operations. over the course of four or five years i interviewed about 25 to 35 young american citizens who were going to a madrasa in south africa, and they were in a program that takes seven years to go through it and they become
qualified to be imams. they were all hafists and memorized the koran in madrasas right here in the united states and overseas. they never finished public school. they memorized courtan and when they became graduation high school age they went to the madrasas in south africa because they teach in english. i saw it up close and personal with a large cohort of american citizens and/or sons of immigrants, still lawful permanent residents. i saw them transform from young men into adults, not only in physical nature but in terms of their commitment to the ideology that they were studying in south africa, so i know it's real. that was my specialty. i introduced hundreds and hundreds of individuals coming back into the united states. both american citizens, lawful permanent residents and visitors and every time it was the same
motivation, commitment to ideology that i saw in every single one of them. >> well, i understand the point that destroying isis, destroying the movement isis, destroying the military force of isis doesn't destroy the ideology, doesn't destroy the idea, and that's why i asked not just about support but also inspire by which i meant ideology as well as potentially recruiting, training and physically provide ing support, and i think there are analogies, there have been throughout our history, of forces who want to duo us harm, forces that oppose freedom and democracy and the values of tolerance and free expression
and reaction freedom that make us the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. so that's why i'm looking for evidence that isis as it's constituted now is providing inspiration and support because we want to stop not only isis but also whatever it's doing to inspire and support extremism and violent extremism in this country. acts of hate and acts of terror and orlando was both. i think the president was right about that fact, and the attorney general. united states was right about that fact, and -- and, you know, i -- i found mr. jasser's point about the responsibility of your effort being bipartisan so compelling. you used that word, and i think
it's important that we in the congress be bipartisan in this effort, and the more we are partisan the weaker we will be. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator blumenthal. >> thank you. >> senator coops. >> i wanted to follow up on this idea that the ideology is a trigger to violence and how aggressively or actively we should be going after an ideology rather than actions based on an ideology that mr. mccarthy suggested, and mr. mccarthy, i may have misunderstood but i thought i heard you say that the expansion. first amendment in cases during the 1960s to protect radical ideas was a mistake. is that correct? >> i did say that, yes. >> then let me just -- if i could, mr. cohen -- >> duo you want to -- duo you want me to explain what i meant by it? >> very concisely, if you would.
>> sure. they carved out an exception for the advocacy of ideology that calls for the violent overthrow of the united states as if there were a firm difference between advocating and inciting it which i think has been much more difficult to apply than perhaps they thought. >> mr. cohen, you've dedicated most of your life to the pursuit of finding and closing down those who engage it, not just dangerous ideology but actions against other americans and there were some interesting comments about pushing back against the cliklan and just because the klan or the lord's resistance army, just because they miscite ts cite the bible.
help me understand in your view why we should be engaging in widespread surveillance of the muslim community and whether we should be indulging the proposals of some candidates for president with bars of muslims into the united states or patrols of so-called muslim neighborhoods in an effort to contain a dangerous ideology. where do you think that boundary lies between appropriate investigation of those who might have a proclivity to violence and demeaning an entire religion? >> i think we're on a very slippery slope and a very, very dangerous one. if i can respond to one thing that mr. mckarlty said and perhaps that will put it into context. you know, the abstract advocacy of violence in our country is a constitutionally -- is constitutionally protected speech. what's not protected is, you know, stealing a group and preparing a group for violence.
the first is protected by the first amendment. the latter is a conspiracy, a criminal conspiracy. i think that if we don't hold that distinction sacred our country will be in trouble. i think that some. -- some of the -- some of the implicit suggestions that we should surveil entire communities are not only ineffective but wildly un-american, and i -- i can't believe that we would countenance that kind of activity in our country. i think it would drive -- i think it would more likely drive terrorism than it would root it out. >> that is exactly the challenge i think senator klobuchar was referencing in her home community, the challenge of striking a balance between investigating, prosecute being those very few individuals who are committed to acts of
violence. >> yes. >> and breaking up conspiracies and engaging the much broader muslim community that is loyal and wants to fully enjoy the freedoms. united states and without their partnership and effective intervention of a very small number of nokes who want to turn an ideology into some action will be at risk. there was a previous exchange about removing from training manuals information that was bigtd and wildly misleading. if you just renew the point. you assert in your testimony that stigmatizing and marginalizing an entire community based on their faith both chills our first amendment and also puts us at risk because it -- it frays the very relationship between law enforcement and millions of americans. would you just elaborate on that for a moment. >> yeah, sure. you know, specifically on your last point, i think the concern
is that if you yeast mistrust between law enforcement and our communities people are going to be reluctant to interact with law enforcement and that means people engaging in the crimes will not be brought to justice and there's a real safety concern and specifically to tees out what that is. the certain is that these material are basically setting up a situation where it was calling for protected activity to now be seen as an indicator of violence, for example, growing a beard, attending a mosque or prayer group where specific items or bev may haviors in an fbi report being and inldcation of violence. >> in some perspectives it could be seen as a gradual movement to
radicalization. removing that from the training manual makes it more likely that law enforcement agents who need to understand islam will not make the mistake of assuming that haul r-- >> if i my just close with you. the assertion has been made directly and indirectly that the obama administration has literally put american lives at risk because of political correctness or even worse that career law enforcement agents because of a fear of somehow being politically incorrect stepped back from doing their job to keep americans safe. in the instauns of omar mateen, he was surveilled several times by fbi agents, both directly and indirectly, undercover agents and folks who were sent in to try and see what he might commit to or what he might duo. there's two different possible theories of the case here. one is that the obama
administration is disloyal, treesness and putting american safety at risk and so willfully said we're not going to take any actions against this dangerous radical. i find that disrespectful to what i know of those in state and local and federal law enforcement i've worked with for many years who frankly when they see a clear threat to public safety, don't care about prechtness. they care about doing their job and alternative theory would be despite repeated attempts to build a credible case against this individual he didn't bite. he didn't take action. didn't take a conspiracy or proffer opportunities in a way that allow agents to build a real case against him and proceed and as senator klobuchar indicated n one of the largest muslim american communities they have taken case after case after case to tribal and those who
stock teps to participate in conspiracies. first, does it seem credible to you that law enforcement agents look the other way because of political correctness or does it seem more likely that a disturbed individual who at different times said he was supported or involved with groups literally fighting each other on the battlefield wasnality taking enough steps to develop a working case and snekd new york city police commissioner bill bratton recently said that wide scale surveillance programs like a nypd program that targeted the muslim community failed to produce a single piece of actionable intelligence and frankly didn't work. i'd be interested in your comment on how we could strengthen the hand of federal and local law enforcement to keep us safe. >> on your first question, i believe the men and mainly of doing everything possible up the
law to protect us from threats and in the case where red flags were raised they are not looking for the right thing. they are not looking for indicators of violence but indicators of radicalization and in some of thesecations what we see are the clear models are not accurate, and i -- and i also agree on the issue with chief bratton where the -- the broad surveillance of entire communities dilutes the ability to actually focus on real threats and that's why during the period those programs were in place, azazi and others cases were missed because they were looking too broadly rather than focusing on real threats. both of those cases they trained overseas to radical training camps and maybe that's something we should put more resources in
rather than surfailing all muslims. >> thanks to the whole panel. i duo think we have important and unresolved questions about how to keep americans safe and how to strength-in the hand of federal, state and local law enforcement but in a way that respects our most fundamental values and doesn't come up against the boundaries of cherished first amendment freedoms, and i frankly think whether you call it razz call islam, islamism, radical extremism, spending three hours arguing about the semantics in my view hasn't moved us any closer towards developing a new and effective ways to combat terror and to defeat isis, and i look forward to the upcoming hearing where we will have secretary jeh johnson here and we can both ask more pointed questions about the department of homeland security and the strategy that we'll all follow going forward. let me just close by saying that i am deeply troubled by proposals in our current election season. proposals made by mr. trump to ban all muslims from coming to
the united states, appropriate calls to keep a list of all in the united states and patrol muslim neighborhoods are profoundly unhelpful as we try to keep our country safe and preserve muslim traditions and i frankly worry that proposals such as these and the broad following that they seem to have gotten harken back to some of the worst chapters in american history. in particular i'll remind us that after the attack on perm harbor this great nation turned its back on japanese-americans forcing the relocation and incarceration in camps of over 100,000 people based solely on their japanese ancestry, not based on any actions taken or any expression of intent to harm americans or be disloyal to the united states and the majority of those interned were american citizens. as i prepare for today's hearing i could not forget a meeting i had with the daughter of fred
koramatsu whose name was given to a signal u.s. supreme court case. i met his daughter at a ceremony at the white house and in 1983 when his conviction for violating the internment order was finally overturned he said, and i quote, would i like to see the government admit they were wrong and duo something about it so this will never happen again to any american citizen of any race, creed or color. it is my hope that in this debate and in this elect season we will set aside proposals more in keeping with the errors we made in the match the where we went off entire groups of american citizens regardless of their substantive actions and we would live up to our core constitutional commitments and creed and find the right balance between respecting constitutional liberties, welcoming all americans of whatever background and kinding a bipartisan path forward that will genuinely keep americans safe. thank you. >> thank you, for coops.
i want to thank each. witnesses coming and participating in what i believe was a very important hearing. i want to very briefly make three closing observations. the first, several of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle made invocations. ku klux klan and drew the analogy of blaming the klan on christians to addressing candidly the threat of jihadism and radical islamic trip. would i hope that all of us on both sides of the aisle could agree that the ku klux klan is bigoted and evil and has no place in civilized society, and i would note the suggestion that that could somehow be extended to the christian faith dr. martin luther king and many of the civil rights pioneers were christian ministers, reverand king and indeed one of the most
powerful pans to justice ever written, the letter from the birmingham jail begins my dear fellow clergyman, no faith, whether christian or jewish or muslim or any other has the right to murder others because they duo not share that faith, and we should speak candidly and vigorously against anyone advocating for the murder of innocents because of religious hatred and intolerance. a second observation that is disappointing after hearing a testimony that included mr. haney's testimony that some 876 documents were edited or deleted as a result of a purge, it saddens me that not a single one of my colleagues from the democratic side of the aisle asked even a single skeptical question about that purge, the purge that resulted in deleting
the word jihad, dropping it from 11 is 26 in the 9/11 report to zero in report after report after report that apparently the orwellian censorship of law enforcement materials and intelligence materials is not a concern to my colleagues. i would note the senate has a long history of holding the executive accountable, regardless of party, and at a time when we're facing a global war on terror i hope that my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle will express real concern about a censorship and editing of law enforcement materials. and the final observation, several times it has been suggested in a nod towards presidential politics, and i understand the lure of senators to inject themselves in presidential politics a few months before a general election may be irresistible, and i
wouldn't know anything about that, but yet not a single one of my democratic colleagues asked questions or expressed concerns as to why over and over and over and over again the administration has failed to respond to red flags, failed to respond to real significant evidence of radical islamic terrorism before these terror attacks was carried out and has failed to connect the dots. law enforcement can't be perfect. we shouldn't hold them to that stan dard, but it is the obligation. senate to hold them in account when over and over and over again from little rock, to fort worth, to chattanooga, to san bernardino, to boston marathon and ft. hood and orlando, the red flags are there. the signs are there and yet the administration doesn't connect the dots around act to prevent those acts of terrorism. it saddens metula not a single question from the democratic side of the aisle focused on why didn't we duo more to protect --
prevent these acts of terrorism before they happen? this isn't a question of semantics. this is a question of whether the administration is willing to acknowledge what the threat is and will go to act to prevent acts of murder and terrorism before they occur. with that i want to once again thank each of the witnesses for being here. we will keep this hearing record open for an additional five business days which means the record will be closed at the end of business on thursday, july 7th, 2016, and with that this hearing is adjourned.
anniversary of the museum and american history tv's live coverage starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. we'll tour the museum and see one of a kind aviation and space artifacts, including the spirit of st. louis and the apollo lunar module, plus live events at the front of the building. learn more are about the museum as we speak to its director and museum curator january my kenny and valerie neal, chair of the space history department. you can join the conversation as we'll be taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian national air and space museum, live, friday evening beginning at 6:00 eastern on c-span 3's live american history tv. now education secretary john king testifies on the implementation of the every student succeeds act. at the hearing hosted by the house education and workforce committee, members questioned mr. king on the rule-making process and the policy where federal funds are designed to supplement, not supplant, state
resources. this is just under two hours. >> the committee will come to order. welcome back, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us. when we last met, the process for implementing the every student succeeds act was just getting under way. we had a healthy discussion about the bipartisan reforms congress passed and the president signed into law. those reforms are designed to restore state and local control over k-12 schools. that's not just my own personal view. it's a view held by governors, state lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals and superintendents who recently wrote, that quote, every student succeeds act is clear. education decision-making now rests with states and districts and the federal role is to support and inform those decisions. it's also the view of most honest observers as the "wall street journal" editorialized. the law represents, quote, large largest devolution of control to the states in a quarter century. the reason for this hearing and our continued oversight is to ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed.
critical part of the effort is holding your agency accountable, mr. secretary, from steps that are taken to implement the law. when with you were with us in february you said, quote, you can trust we'll abide by the letter of the law as we move forward, close quote. that's a strong statement, and it's one of several commitments you've made that the department would act responsibly. but actions speak louder than words n.recent months we've been seeing troubling signs of the department pulling the country in a different direction than the one congress provided in the law. the first troubling sign is the rule-making process itself. there are a number of concerns about the integrity of the negotiated rule-making committee, including the makeup of the panel, lack of rural representation and the accuracy of statements made by the president staff. the point of the rule-making process is to build consensus amongst those directly affected by the law and it seems the department has decided to stack the deck. the second troubling sign surrounds that funds supplement
and not supplant student resources. prior to the act the rule was applied differently depending on how many low-income schools served. some faced different requirements than others. last year congress decided the rule could be enforced equally across all schools. now school districts must simply show that funds are distributed fairly without prescribing a specific approach or outcome. the law explicitly prohibits the secretary from interfering, yet that is precisely what your proposal would duo. what the department is proposing would be both illegal and harmful to students and communities. it would impose a significant financial burden on states and force countless public school districts to change how they hire and pay their teachers. this regulatory effort to trying to achieve an end congress rejected and the non-partisan research center warns go beyond, quote, a plain language reading. statute. no doubt you have good intentions, mr. secretary, but
do you not have the legal authority to do this. i strongly urge you to abandon this flawed scheme. the third troubling sign is the department's accountability proposal. let pleased to see such as how states set long-term goals and measure interim progress. but in a number of ways we see the department's bad habit for making decisions that must be left to states. this is especially troubling given the laws prohibitions against federal interference including how states compare performance and identify schools for support. for years states grappled with a rigid accountable system. the every student succeeds act turns the page on that failed approach. i urge you to adopt a final proposal that reflects the letter and spirit of the law. we are raising these concerns because it's important for the laws to be faithfully excue the and we are raising these concerns because we want to
ensure every child has the best chance to receive a quality education. we can't go back to the days when the federal government dictated national education policy. it didn't work then and won't work now. if the department refuses to follow the intent of the law, you prevent state leaders like dr. pruitt from doing what's right for sthar districts. you deny superintendents like dr. schuller of illinois the ability to manage schools in a way that meets the needs of local communities and make it harder for teachers like cassie harrelson to serve the best interests of the students in their classrooms. later, we will hear from these individuals because they represent the people we want to empower. che child deserves an excellent education and the only way to achieve that goal is to restore state and local control. that's what the every student succeeds acts is intended to do. we will use every tool at our disposal to make sure the letter and intent of the law are followed. il recognize bobby could the scott for his opening remarks.
>> thank you, mr. chairman for calling this hearing to discuss implementation of the law we work theed to enact last year. i look forward to the dialogue concerning the department's on going efforts to provide states and school districts with the clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the every student succeeds act. as i previously stated i'm proud of our collective efforts to craft a strong bipartisan law that was worthy of the president's signature. doing so was no small feat. however, passing legislation is only one step of many. fulfilling the promise of the every student succeeds act rests in successful implementation that honors congress's long-standing event of elementary and secondarily education act. the intent to promote and protect at all levels of government the right to an educational opportunity for from child regardless of race, income, language status or
disability. while essa returns much decision making to state and local level, it is not a blank check. the law includes important guard rails, most importantly that states and districts are required to take action when students aren't learning. states and districts get to decide which actions are most appropriate in each school's unique context but taking some action is not negotiable. a robust graip framework is fathers to ensure they're getting the job done and taking action in each and every school is required by federal law. the regulations empower states and local districts to fully comply with the federal plaupz getting this right is hard work and the government has an important role to play. on a -- i want to thank the department of education under the leadership of then acting secretary king for moving so quickly to provide feedback from and provide necessary clarity to practitioners it, parents and community members through the
proposed regulations. i also want to commend the secretary and his staff for their transparency and copied collaboration with members on this committee and our staffs throughout the process. the department has demonstrated commitment to fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities critical to helping states and school districts move forward expeditiously. from this point, there is considerable agreement although some state and local stakeholder groups originally urged there be no regulatory framework, those same groups in combination with others on the negotiated rule making panel reached an agreement on the proposed assessment regulatory text. we want to thank members of that panel including the department for working and making compromises to reach consensus when proposed regulations for some of the most contentious and challenging issues in the entire law. their consensus serves as powerful affirmation for the clarity and direction that the regulations provide. in addition, the regulatory, in,
addition to the negotiated rule making process, the department recently released its proposed regulatory text for accountability, intervention, data reporting, and consolidated safe plan development for public comment. again, i want to thank the secretary for moving so quickly. many individuals and groups requested additional regulatory clarity on these important issues and the department heeded those requests as the department has done in the past. i'm sure the robust dialogue with all stakeholders including congress will inform revisions and improvements in the propose proposal during the 60-day comment period which closes august 1st. i look forward to hearing from today's experts on the specifics of the department's proposal. and just as the federal government works to meaningfully engage the diverse stakeholders to he cantively implement the new law, state and local leaders
must use the clarity provided by the federal regulations to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in the development of new plans and the implementation moves forward. the upcoming election will usher in a new administration with less than six months before that transition, secretary king's time at the department is winding down. and with this upcoming change in leadership, states and school districts need the consistency and dependability provided by regulations election year or not. so i look forward to hearing from the secretary about his efforts to put in place a meaningful regulatory framework that empowers states and districts to fulfill. the congressional intent and improve educational equity beyond the current administration. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. pursuant to the 7 c, all members will be permitted to submit written statements. without objection, the record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other
material submitted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. it's my pleasure to introduce our first witness. we're glad to have you here as mr. scott said, the last time you were here i believe you were still the acting secretary. congratulations on becoming the official secretary of the department of education. everybody here knows your background. we're delighted that you're here. i'm going to ask you now to raise your right hand if you would and do you sell lemly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give are will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do. >> before i recognize you to give your testimony, let me remind you of the lighting system. it will ally pretty rig lusly to my colleagues, we'll turn the five-minute clock on. that's a sort of background reference for you. please give your testimony as
you see fit. it's been a long time since i gaveled down a cabinet secretary for speaking too long. but if you would try to wrap up in a reasonable time because we're getting actually surprising number of members to show up considering that the house adjourned and i'm sure there was a race to the airport sometime early this morning. i want to make sure all colleagues have a chance to engage in the conversation. mr. secretary? >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman cline, ranking member scott and members of the committee. i appreciate the invitation to come back before this committee and testify today regarding how the department of education is moving forward with the implementation of the every student succeeds act wit president signed into law on december 10th, 2015. i am grateful thanks to the leadership of chairman cline and ranking member scott and members of this committee congress acted last year to reauthorize this piece of legislation. over the past 7 1/2 years,
thanks to hard working educators supported by families, our schools and students have made tremendous strides. the graduation rate is at a record high and schools in 49 states are helping students meet college and career ready standards and assessing their progress. more states alsos are investing more money in helping make sure children are ready to succeed when they enter kinder garnett. increasing intending on early learning over the past three years. so much work remains. far too many students from every background still arrive at college needing remedial classes. and black and hispanic students continue to lag behind white peers in achievement and graduation rates. the latest figures from our civil rights data collection illustrate and powerful and troubling ways the disparities in opportunity and experience for different groups of students in our schools. just a few sticks. students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as students without to be suspended. schools with high concentrations
of black and latino students are less likely to offer advanced courses such as physics which is critical for successes in college. one out of five college students are english language learners is absent. these are the very children that the elementary and secondary act has most recently amended was designed to protect and serve. the good news is essa provides local communities and states with pathway toward excellent for all students and tools that will help them get there. states will be able to go beyond test scores in math and english language arts by adding that own indicate kers of school quality and progress. to ensure a rigorous well rounded education for every student. we know literacy and math skills are necessary for life but they are not sufficient. importantly, a rich well rounded education helps our children make critical connections among what they're learning in school, their curiosities and passions
and the skills they need to become the sophisticated leaders who will solve the most pressing challenges facing our communities, our country and our world. understanding that this work requires all of us working together, states are expected to involve local educators parents, civil rights groups, business leaders, tribal officials and other stakeholders in choosing other indicate kers of quality such as decreases in chronic absenteeism or increases in the numbers of students taking and passing advanced classes. the legislation provides additional resources for our traditionally underserved students such as students of color, students from low income families, students with disabilities, learning english native american students, foster and homeless youth and migrant and seasonal farm worker children. states must take meaningful action to improve schools where students are struggling and in high schools with low graduation rates year after year. the flexibility of the law
allows them to tailor interventions to school specific needs. as with all legislation and policy, the quality and fidelity of implementation is critical to success. please allow me to update you on our progress toward helping states implement in law fully and faithfully. the first thing we did was listen. we have convened 200 meetings across the country including dozens of meetings with educators and school leaders in rural, urban and suburban communities across the country. we posted a notice seeking public comment on areas in need of regulation in the federal register and requested feedback on areas in need of guidance. we received hundreds of comments. we prioritized accountability including data reporting and state plans is, assessments under title 1 parts a and b and the requirement that federal dollars supplement state and local funds for education. we engaged in rule making on title one part a assessment and supplement not supplant regulations. we reached consensus on
assessments but not how to enforce the not supplant requirement. we develop our policy. last month, we also issued our notice of proposed rule making on accountability, state plans and data reporting which was published in the federal register may 31st for a 60-day public excellent. we encourage comment on the proposed regulations. consistent with the strong civil rights legacy, the proposed regulations ensure focus on all students including sub groups of students in accountability decisions. they also ensure that meaningful action is take it on improve lowest performing schools with families, educators and stakeholders playing an important role in the process and ensure that educator, students and families have an accurate picture of students' academic performance. in april i announced the department would be issued guidance in several key areas concerning students in foster care, homeless students and english learns.
each was raised as a priority issue. i'm hape to report that this morning we released guidance on ensuring educational stability for children in foster care. essa for the first time includes protections for foster youth who because of their mobility lag behind their peers academically. our guidance released jointly with the department df health and human services clarifies the new requirements regarding children in foster care, promotes greater collaboration between state educational agencies, local educational agencies and child welfare agencies as well as highlighting promises examples to help guide implementation. we plan to support homeless students and english learners at the end of the summer or early fall. the department is working to support states and districts as they implement title 2, title 4 and the provisions in essa around early learn our aim will be to highlight best practices as states and districts make use of new funding opportunities in the law. as i noted at the top, we've
made incredible progress as a nation but there is more to be done. essa is a bipartisan achievement that provides a statutory foundation to close our remain gasp and address our persistent inequities. i'm pleased to hear feedback from this committee today and look forward to continuing to work with all of you to ensure implementation of this law supported by the department and that guarantees a world class education for every child. thank you. i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'll be happy to start that feedback now. i partially quoted some of your remarks from february in my opening statement. that quote came in response to my request that you commit to regulating in a way consistent with the statute. you stayed in full, and i'm having to read here "you can trust that we will abide by the letter of the law as we move forward to do regulations, provide guidance and technical
assistance to states and districts and our intent is to work with you and to gather input from educators, parents and members of this committee as we move forward." i'm concerned your proposal to date are not fully consistent with that commitment. the questions i and i other members have will reflect those concerns. i want to start by asking you about the supplement, not supplant proposal which you discussed in your opening remarks. as you know, we asked account congressional research service to review the proposal and they agreed with us that your proposal, if it were promulgated as a final rule would likely be illegal. they said, and i quote, based on plane language of the above provisions in conjunction with the legislative history and the statutory scheme as a whole it, therefore seems unlikely that congress intended section 118 b to authorize the education department to establish regulations that would require title 1 a to meet or exceed
those of nontitle 1 a schools. i'd like to you respond specifically to one of those conclusions. crs said the plain language of the section does not appear to require equalized spending and that your proposal failed to justify why you believe it does. could you explain beyond the talking points we've already heard, how plain reading of section 1118 b would require the result you have proposed? >> sure. the historic calf context is important. that language was originally added to the law after an naacp/ldf report that showed federal dollars were being used to back fill state and local responsibilities to high need schools, particularly those serving students of color. that's the history of that language. the language must mean that the federal dollars are intended to be supplemental, not to back fill state and local responsibilities. we know that there are districts
where 25 to 30% more is being spent in schools serving affluent students than in schools a few blocks away serving low income students. clearly inconsistent with the very words supplement not supplant. our proposal seeks to ensure we enforce the law as written, that the funds are truly supplemental. however, we received feedback throughout the rule making process, adjusted account proposal throughout that negotiating rule making process have, continued to receive feedback and input from stakeholders since the completion of the negotiated rule making sessions and look forward to moving it forward in a way that is responsive to the feedback and input we've received. >> well, i thank you for the response. however, the point that i'm trying to get at is that the statute it, it the plain language of the statute is very,
very clear and it doesn't say that the secretary is allowed to decide on his own what the intent of the history of this was. the language is very, very clear and that's what the congressional research service said. second, i want to ask one straightforward question about your accountability proposal. in looking at it in totality, my concern is that you are deliberately attempting to increase the number of schools identified for interventions beyond what was intended in the statute. five years from now, what number or percentage of schools nationwide do you anticipate will be identified for comprehensive and targeted support as a result of these regulatory proposals? >> that proposal really seeks to ensure that states have the opportunity to broaden their definition of educational excellence to introduce additional indicators of performance beyond just english and math performance and graduation rates. it also creates the opportunity for states to the set goals and
targets for performance and it importantly requires that states and districts intervene when schools are in the bottom 5% of performance when schools are struggling with particular subgroup performance and when schools have low graduation rates year after year. the number of schools that will be identified will depend on how states use that flexibility. but clearly a priority in the law was to ensure that states act meaningfully in schools that are struggling or where there are achievement gasp and that's what the regulations require. >> so as you point out, you don't know and that's not to be -- not a surprise how many schools would fall into that category. presumably, the department is doing some analysis of this as it goes forward. and if that's so, would you
please commit to providing that analysis to us so we can see how this is going to unfold? i'm afraid that right now, and we're early here and again that's why i'm glad you're here so we can get at this. it looks like there's an attempt here to increase the number of schools identified for interventions. we want to look at that analysis. that's not the intent of the statute. there's no -- we need to see that number go up. we wrote the language very specifically. so i've asked and you've answered you would give us that analysis as we go forward. let me yield for questions to mr. scott. >> before i begin, i'd like to submit for the record documents one a statement released yesterday by 31 civil rights groups calling for stronger accountability regulations and another letter from the leadership of the caucus urging the secretary of the administration to full till its regular latory obligation and protect the civil rights of all students including that of
supplement not supplant. and. >> without objection. >> thank you. mr. secretary, when you proposed regulations as a comment period, what is the purpose of the comment period and what happens after the comment period? >> that the purpose is for us to gather input from stake holders. we will want to hear from educators from parents, from civil rights organizations from tribal leaders, from business community. from community-based organizations working with young people particularly young people most at risk and we will gather that input and we will address it. and similarly, we want input from members of congress and appreciate this opportunity to gather feedback. our ultimate regulations will reflect our attempt to respond to the input we've received. >> thank you. you mentioned supplement not supplant. there's language in the brown v board of education case that said that the opportunity of an education is a right which must be made available it all on equal terms.
if a locality is chronically underfunding certain schools,ing is there not an obligation to come up with some appropriate equitable funding outside of the essa? >> absolutely. >> and then supplement not slant would mean you would have to supplement over what your legal obligation is, is that right? >> that's right. >> can you say a word about the how you identify how you make sure that all sounds in underserved schools receive the support that they need in light of the fact that some schools look like they're doing okay, but subgroups are not performing? >> that's right. we've been careful in the regulations to try to ensure that schools do not fall through the cracks we don't want students to fall through the cracks. so the regulations give the states the opportunity to set
meaningful goals and targets. but require them to intervene where schools are not making it overall progress for their sub groups. so we will be vigilant in ensuring that states responds and states have to intervene where sub groups are struggling, where the schools are in the bottom 5% of performance or whether low graduation rates. if their interventions do not improve student performance, they need to intensify those interventions using evidence of effectiveness. >> you mentioned the bottom 5%. there's some suggestion that the data collected will not allow you to rank schools if you can't rank schools, how do you ascertain the bottom 5%? >> that's an excellent question. one of the reasons the regulations require a summit of reading. but how states approach that summit of reading may vary. some states may use an a through
f methodology, some states may use categorical labels for different sets of schools. but the law does require that states intervene in that bottom 5% of schools and they will need to have a summit of rating to get to that bottom 5%. >> last month, the gao released a study that was requested that i requested along with the former ranking george mill earp judiciary committee rachinging member john conyers on segregation in public schools a through 1. the gao report found an actually recent increase in racial and socioeconomic segregation and that it's getting worse. what we've asked for hearings and hopefully one day we'll have hearings on that. what can essa do to reduce racial and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools? >> let me say, we're deeply
concerned about not only the lack of progress since brown versus board of education but actually places around the country where we're seeing increased socioeconomic and racial isolation. there's an opportunity as states consider their flexibility to intervene in struggling schools to think how they would create a strategy that would promote school diversity. we've made school diversity a priority in our competitive grant programs. the president as you know has proposed in the 2017 budget initiative called stronger together that senator murphy and congresswoman fudge and you are also helping to us advance that would allow us to direct resources to support voluntary locally led efforts to increase school diversity. we also are using the magnet schools program, the long-standing magnet schools program to support local efforts to increase school diversity. we know for our low income students, they do better in schools that are
socioeconomically diversity. we know we want to prepare all of our young people for success in a diversity society. all kids benefit from diversity schools. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. dr. fonchs you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary king, welcome to the committee. i'd like to return to the supplement, not supplant conversation. in 2011, the department issue aid policy brief in a report analyzing the compliance costs of the comparability requirement for per pupil expenditures for title one schools, a proposal that's analogous to the department's draft regulations. assume ugh have more recent data, could you please provide us the estimated cost in state and local dollars of compliance with the proposal put forth by the department during negotiated rule making? >> well, i would make a distinction in the way that the question was framed between
comparability and supplement not supplant. comparability addresses theive of services. supplement not supplant addresses the issue of the allocation of state and local funding. the proposal that was discussed and negotiated rule making and an just throughout the negotiated rule making it would require states to comply with the supplement districts to comply with the supplement not supplant provision of the law. it the process that districts would use to do that would be determined by the districts and so there is not a single number that can be estimated today for that proposal. but as i say, the proposal was adjusted throughout the negotiated rule making and we will continue to adjust that proposal based on the input and feedback we have received since then. >> you who can is the department put forward a regulatory proposal without understanding the financial impact and how can the congress and the public be expected to evaluate its wisdom without such information?
>> well, the requirement in the statute is that the federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. in fact, the very language supplement not supplant is intended to separate the issue of the use of federal funds from the issue of state and local funds. it's to say state and local funds should it be allocated in a way that is equitable and then the federal funds should be supplemental. >> well, the center for american progress reported last year the nationwide compliance costs for proposals similar to yours would be $8.5 billion. do you think that's a reasonable estimate? >> again, the design of the proposal was to implement the requirement in the statute that the federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. districts have a responsibility to ensure that they are not using those federal dollars to back fill state and local funds. to the extent that districts are today using federal dollars to
back fill state and local funds, that is not consistent with the very words supplement, not supplant. >> let me now focus on how school districts would comply with your proposal. the department's 2011 report indicates some of the nation's largest school districts could have to increase spending by anywhere from less than 1% to as much as 20%. please tell the committee specifically how a school district unable to increase spending by these amounts could comply with your proposal. >> again, the frame of the question suggests that districts today are using the federal dollars in a way that back fills local and state responsibilities. so the requirement would be for districts to ensure that they're not doing that. that the state and local funds are allocated in a reasonable fashion that allows the federal dollars to be used to indeed supplement and to the extent
that a district is spending 25 to 30% more in a school serving affluent kids than in a school serving high needs kids ten blocks away that, can't possibly be consistent with the very words supplement, not supplant. and the adjustment they will need to make is one that is required by the statute. >> well, if school districts are forced to change teacher hiring policies and somehow find the legal and contractual authority to do so in order to comply with the proposal, school districts rather than school principals will assume more authority for personnel hiring decisions in local schools. tell us how this would benefit low income students when we know that effective principals with greater staffing autonomy can be one of the most effective ways to increase student outcomes. >> if today districts are using the federal dollars in a way that is not supplemental and they need to correct that, they could do that a number of ways.
they could increate incentives for veteran highly effective teachers to go to schools. they could invest in prek programs in a high needs school and insure the high needs school has access to counselors or launches is advanced coursework. the reassignment of teachers is not a requirement of the proposal. as a general matter, i don't think anyone supports forced transfers of teachers. that's not required by the proposal what the proposal require is that the dollars are used in a way that is in fact supplemental. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. ms. davis, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us although we probably got to bed a little bit later perhaps than you did. i wanted to follow up with ranking member -- ranking chairman scott's question and
just about the end size, the number of students that we group and then try and evaluate whether or not they're being properly served. and i think that there are some concerns that students perhaps especially special education students, for example, might not be really properly seen within an accountability system. could you comment on that? and you know, for example, if the number of fell to 28, 29 for a group, what would that mean? >> yeah, we're very concerned about issues event size. what we propose in the regulations is that states would set their end size but they would need to provide justification to the peer review process if they set an end size above 30. the reason we use that is based on research evidence on how we ensure that capture sub groups as well as possible. ies did a study that showed if
you use an end size of 40 or more, you would only get to about 32% of students with disability buzz if you use a size of 30, you would get to about 79%. so we asked states for justification if they want to go above 30. we have heard feedback that there are stakeholder groups how are interested in requiring a justification at a lower end size. and we do worry about sub groups getting missed. and schools where a particular subgroup you have students doesn't get -- the adequate services to make academic progress and that's never identified. that's one of the important elements of the law is requiring subgroup disaggregated data and we want to make sure that's enforced while preserving for states the flexibility to justify their end sizes. >> exactly. i mean, the disaggregation we know is key. do you in looking back at the way this was done previously and
states moving forward, are you confident that you're going to be able to have this be more of a universal standard or in fact, it sounds like there is quite a bit of leeway perhaps for some groups. i'm just wanted to floe throw that out there because i know that it is a concern and it will be very important not to have that slipping. > yes. that's a very fair concern. the vast majority of states today are at 30 or lower. and we think the peer review process will provide an important check on the end sizes that states ultimately choose. >> thank you. and i wanted to go to the issue of teacher evaluations because we know that. essa, it's quite clear that this is really up to local school districts. and yet, i wanted to sort of talk about the language a little bit because clearly, in this
legislation, we want states and we certainly want school districts to do the very best they can in developing a program that engages teachers in the process and in addition helps them be better. helps them do what they really want to do and have it be meani meaningful. that's where many districts and many states did not have a process that would do that. where is the federal role on that now, and what is certainly within the per view of essa. >> we think it's very important that the every student succeeds act prks the language around equitable distribution of quality teachers from no child left behind. we have been working with says the as you know on equity plan whereas states are working on initiatives to ensure their teachers are well prepared. that they have a diversity supply of teachers. that they are getting teachers to high need schools. their state initiatives it focused on rural schools and the necessary teachers of english
language learns where some states are struggling with shortages. we think those equity planses are very important. what we propose in the regulations that are out for comment is that states will adjust and update those plans based on some of the new language that appears in the prey essa but we want to make sure that our low income students, stuchbds color, students with disabilities english learns aren't disproportionately taught by teacher who are teaching out of field. that's an important i think requirement of essa and important principle. >> i think i'm equally concerned about how that sharing of information because we know we have peer evaluation systems that quayle work very well. also. they may require for substitute time. but i just wanted to mention that and go ahead and -- >> the gentle lady's time has expired. dr. rowe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, dr. king, on your nomination and appointment
as secretary. just a couple comments about back fill. in our state when i was the mayor of our local community, once we raised education spending, we could never go back. there was no back filling at all. anything that came in was doishl what we had and at least in the state of tennessee. i am for the first time since i've been a congressman 7 1/2 years, it's fun to walk in an elementary school and see smiling teachers and smiling administrators finally. they do like this bill. and i spoke with one of my school directors yesterday and i think it's really the implementation of it. that's why we're talking today so that last night we voted on a thousand-page rule to define one word. i don't think we need cha kind of weight on these folks and distance learning where we are. department of education provided grants where the foundation where i live, it's done a great job of getting distance learning out. i want to revisit a conversation we had in february about the waits states apply to the
indicators of their accountability system you said "i think we have an opportunity where the states can broaden how they define excellent education to make their definition more well rounded than the narrow focus on english and math assessments that we saw during the no child left behind hearing. i was pleased it did not offer a range of weights in which states would have to excuse. i'm concerned about the parameters you did include to limit the way states weigh their indicators. can you indicate how the limitations imposed in your proposal fit with your commitment to give states an opportunity to broaden how this he define success? >> yeah, thanks. i appreciate the question. so the we carefully consistent with the statute do not set weights or percentages for different indicators. the statute does require the substantial weight for the academician ming indicators and that the academic indicators are
of much greater weight than the other indicators. and so we built into the regulations a set of checks that will be implemented through the peer review process to ensure that states are acting in ways that are consistent with the statutory language around substantial weight and much greater weight. but we do think there's tremendous flexibility for states to think through what additional indicators they will use to supplement english and math and graduation rates and opportunity for states to look at things like whether or not they're providing access to advanced coursework as that distance learning effort tries to in tennessee, whether they're providing access to advanced coursework in a way that's equitable for various sub groups of students. >> we agree that i think the local control is essential, accountability is essential and disaggregation of the data is essential to find out that there are children their needs are not being met. the statute requires states to
include in their accountability systems at least one indicator of school quality for student success to ensure the state accountability systems are taking into consideration more than just test scores in determining school performance. the statute includes a few broad parameters for this indicator. but your proposal goes beyond the parameters by requiring that this additional indicator be supported by research that performance or progress on such indicator is likely to increase student achievement or graduation rates. could you provide the statute rit justification for adding this additional requirement? >> yeah. this is really about the state plan and showing that as states do this work of identifying these other indicators, that the indicators are connected to students' long-term success which is the goal of these additional indicators being a part of the accountability system. as the state peers and experts on peer review panels review the state plans, we think it's important for them to look at the indicators in that context.
one quick example in that crdc data i just described we found that nationally, 13% of students are chronically absent. that is 13% of students are missing more than 15 days of school each year. we know that chronic absent teeism is closely connected to students' progress from grade to grade and their likelihood of graduation. that's a good example of an indicator that a state might consider. obviously, it's up to states to decide what those would be. that's a good example of one where there is strong evidence based on the association between that indicator and long-term success. >> one last comment. i think we have a great opportunity to put the fun back in education again. i mean, teachers were just absolutely is, you'd, i would go into a group of educators and ask how many would do this job again and the majority would not. and that's not good. i think this gives us an opportunity to put the fun back in education. and i hope we don't weight it
down too much from here. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. adams. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, ranking member scott and secretary king. thank you for joining the committee again and congratulations. i am very proud of the work that was done to get the every student succeed act passed into law. the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act was long overdue. we owed it to our students and families around this country to update this important legislation and now as we work toward implementing the act, i believe it's appropriate for us as members of congress to monitor its progress but i'm absolutely as opposed to efforts to undermine the department of education in the spirit of the law. we had our chance to write the law and now we should let the process move forward. additionally, the federal government has an appropriate role in education policy and i
believe that the department will move it forward to fully realize it. in states like my state north carolina, federal policies are essential will protect our students from a number of state policies that in my opinion are ruining a state that has once been a national leader in education. since republicans took over the general assembly, we've passed a number of bills. i was there during the time that in my opinion will dismantle public education that's been some of what i've seen. we need to value our educators more and we have some question in north carolina about whether or not we do that. we pay them less than the national average, and we're ranking as one of the worst states per pupil spending. and so provisions like supplement not supplant are really imperative. so without it, i'm sure that north carolina might make even deeper cuts to education and we're very concerned about that.
if you can just expand a little more on the importance of federal funds being used to supplement instead of supplant state funds, if i would appreciate that. >> yeah, thank you. you know, at the end of the day, this is a question of insuring that all students have access to a quality education. and we know that in places where there is disproportionate spending on affluent students and less on high need students it, translates into a real difference in students' experience of school. for example, in that crdc data, the civic rights data collection data, there are 1.6 million students that go to a school that has a school police officer but no school counselor. if you have no school counselor in your school, how are you going to support students soio emotional needs, insure that sounds have access to good postsecondary planning? we found that in many of the schools that served the largest numbers of african latino
students, you can't even take calculus orifice sicks. how are we going to ensure diversity in the s.t.e.m. fields and that students have a shot at s.t.e.m. careers if their schools don't even offer those classes. so money certainly isn't everything. but in schools that have inadequate resources, that lack of funding translates into a real lack of educational equality for kids. >> yeah, thanks. so you know, oftentimes students attending title 1 schools are students of color. these same students also make up consistently under performing sub groups. having said that, do you truly believe that allowing states to choose how to determine the success of sub groups will actually result in the improvement of subgroup outcomes? >> i think we have got to be vigilant in the peer review process to make sure that states commit to the meaningful goals and targets for sub groups. in the regulations, we try to
set guardrails around that process. but peer review of the state plans will be critical and vigilance on the part of the department and ultimately on the part of congress to make sure that states are an tentative to the needs of sub groups and that where sub groups are struggling, they intervene. we know the history that there are states that have long ignored the performance of sub groups, states ta prior to no child left behind didn't even count their english learners in their accountability systems at all. so we've got to be vigilant. we think that we've set the right guardrails in the regulations but also are interested in folks feedback on those. >> thinking about these same sub groups you have students, without require reggie specific ratings, how will we hold schools accountable for improved outcomes for the lowest performing students? we think the ratings are critical for transparency for parents and teachers and ultimately for communities around which schools are
struggling and need that additional support and which schools are excelling and can be models for other schools to replicate their best practices. we also require transparent report ong each of the indicators because we think it's important to have that sumtive rating but also have good information at the school level and also the subgroup level and all of the indicators. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. guthrie. >> i agree that weep write the law and you implement and execute the law. it's what our founding fathers intended. it is our responsibility not just to write the law and lets it go to have oversight to make sure you're complying with the intent and language of the law. today, my commissioner from kentucky is going to be here to speak to us. one of the things i know he has concerns with and others have concerns with is about the expedited time line required in your proposal. essass says no child left behind accountability provisions officially end august 1st of this year.
the statute says no systems will begin with the 2017-2018 academic year. it is clear that congress intended for 2016-2017 to be a transition year to allow states to develop their new accountability systems. yet, your proposal effective requires accountability systems to be developed abimplemented 2016-2017 this academic year. i asked you about this transitioning in february and you answered me and i quote "as we move into the 2017-2018 school year, states will be well positioned to move forward on their new plans." and i interpreted your answer as meaning you understood congressional intent that accountability systems would become active at the beginning of the school year and the initial identification of schools would come at the end of the school year based on those new systems. unfortunately, what you proposed seems to contradict did the statute and will short circuit is the important consultation process taking place at the state and local level. can you make a commitment to us to revise this proposal in the
final rule to allow the requirement with congressional intent and ensure parents and educators have the opportunity to fully engage in the policy making process. >> just to be clear on the proposed rule, under the proposed rule currently out for comment, there's no state that would need to have their accountability system in place prior to 2017-18. the question is, what will happen in 2017-18 and we are interested in folks' feedback on the time line. we are eager i think as the country is, to ensure that we move beyond just english and math test scores and graduation rates p-that we begin to use those other indicators. that's our opportunity to expand the definition of educational excellence and we'd like to move quickly to that expansion. i understand there are folks who would like to extend the focus just on those english and math test scores and graduation
rates. we want to make sure we get to this broader definition. but we're interested in folks feedback on the time line and will try to listen carefully to the input we receive. >> my commissioner will be here this afternoon testifying. i'm sure you'll have people here to hear feedback and continue the dialogue. the one thing on the end size, and understand that there is information prescribed by law that needs to be provided. the disaggregation of data. we want to make sure groups are followed and understand the statistics, understand that. but the statute allows the states to pick that end size. as long as they meet the criteria, you can't prescribe the end size. it's pretty clear on that. we debated and talked about that. i know you talked with one of my colleagues about the information you want. we want you to have the information because we voted to put into law that the country gets that information. we also voted to say we're going to let states determine what that end size is. if they don't do it correctly,
you have opportunity to do so. it seems like you're prescribing an end size you have 30 up front which i'm not sure where the authority for that is. >> we're not requiring any specific end size. what we're asking is when states submit their plan if they choose an end size above 30 that they provide information with respect to why they made that choice. >> will you give them deference? >> again, the regulation preserves the right of states to set their end size. the peer review process does create an opportunity for the plan to be reviewed. and i do think it will be important in terms of civil rights protection for example, if a state were to set their end size in a way that would ensure that students with disabilities would never be counted in their accountability system, that would clearly be problematic. i'm sure the peers and the peer review process would respond negatively to that. but in the regular laces we don't set the end size. >> maybe i misread that. i assumed 30 was the default.
it, if states set an end size ta didn't comply with the rest of the law, there's something we need to address because we want that information, as well. that's why we vote and supported the law. i'll yield back. tank to thanks for coming backing. > miss bonamici, did you want to ask a question. >> yes. welcome to the committee, secretary king. i wanted to align myself with the comments from dr. rowe and others who have said they perceived a real difference in visiting with schools and teachers, educators, patients, students knowing that the changes were made and every student succeeds act that they were desperately needing. and so thank you for the work that you're doing along with the department to implement the every student succeeds act and support states that are redefining their assessment and accountability systems to meet their unique needs. thank you for your leadership.
i want to follow up on the question that was just asked by mr. guthrie. i understand it the need to prevent a gap in meaningful interventions for students. i'm concerned asking states to identify schools for comprehensive and additional targeted support in the 2017-18 school year could discourage states from being innovative. i know the department will work with states to modify their accountability systems and advocators as data from districts becomes available. a process that could take several years, nonetheless, asking states to implement accountability systems in time for the 2017-18 school year seems to run the risk of hampering innovation. discuss the department's alternatives. is there a way we can prevent a gap in support for students and give states the time to put in comprehensive accountability systems that make good news of new data? >> one important point about the proposed regulations is that
states would be able to use the 17-18 year as a planning year for those schools that are requiring comprehensive intervention. but i think ultimately, as i've said, we're interested in feedback on the time line questions. i think we like many educators in schools have a sense of urgency about broadening the indicators that are used for accountability. and to the extent that states are prepared to move more quickly to incorporate agindicator like chronic absenteeism or some states put forth very meaningful effort to try to reduce dispro forcing nat suspensions if states are in a position where they want to introduce those indicators we'd like to see them do ta more quickly so that they're moving it beyond just the english and math scores and graduation rates. but we're interested in feedback and want to work with states and districts to think through the best time line. >> thank you. i'm glad that the department's proposed regulations for accountability would direct schools identified for
comprehensive and additional targeted support to the evaluate resource inequities. but the proposed rule appears to focus on only twoep examples of discrepancy discrepancies in resources. so considering these inequities, it's important of course, but i wonder whether states and districts would now the consider other important inequities, for example, access to advanced coursework, technology, arts and music, how will the department encourage states and districts to identify and address a broad array of resource inequity inside. >> we tried in the regulation to balance wanting to make sure that states do the things that they must and then also offering additional options. there's may language around things like advanced coursework and access to preschool which we think is a very significant equity issue. this is a place where we're open to feedback. we're always trying to strike the right balance around state and local flexibility and real
transparency around resource equity and we are interested in feedback not only from states but civil rights community and advocate sill organizations as we think through the right resource equity indicators. >> terrific. and every student succeeds act is clear that participation rates for statewide assessments need to be a factor in accountability systems. in the department's proposed rule for the systems would give the states four options for incorporating data, participation, one of the options allows states to develop their own proposals for including participation rate. and accountability systems for states that pursue this route. how will your department assist them as they contemplate actions that perhaps less punitive but no less eb in insuring all students are counted? >> i think this issue of a participation rate is bound up with how do we ensure strong parent understanding of the role of assessments in schools. i think there are clearly reasons that folks have seen
over the last decade. an increases in assessment, not the federally required assessments but increase in assessments in schools that have driven a very legitimate set of concerns. that's why the administration proposed the testing action plan. and has put forward guidance and helped to offer place whereas folks can use existing federal resources to support reductions in assessment. that is a feature of the every student succeeds act we want states to take advantage of and districts to take advantage of so that they right size the assessments and where they can replace maybe low level bubble tests with higher quality performance based assessments, those kinds of efforts we think will help insure that states and districts are able to comply with laws expectation that all students will participate in the assessments. >> as someone who's been talking about fewer better assessments for a long time, i look forward to continuing to work with that and yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. byrne. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it's hard to remember all of us up here.
i want to remind you, i'm a former member of the alabama state board of education for eight years. all four of my children attended public schools, all four attended a magnet school in the city of mobile, large urban school system. so i have a great deal of interest in this and i have very high expectations for the performance of our public schools with regard to every student. when you were here before the committee in february, i asked about the phrase in the new law, spgs consistently underperforming and whose responsibility it is to define the term." i also wrote a follow-up letter on march 1st that you responded to on june the 17th. three and a half months later. now, in your response, you pointed to the proposed rule making. when you were here us before, you did not really answer my question. and after reading your proposal, i think i understand why.
but when you were here before, did you say to me, "i am committed to working with this committee committed to ensuring there are implementation is consistent with the showing tha implementation is consistent with the letter of the law. i would say to you if you're committed to working with the committee, taking three and a half months to answer my letter is not consistent with that remark. the letter of the law says the meaning of quote consistently underperforming close quote is to be determined by the states. the letter of the law also says that you are prohibited from prescribing, quote, the specific methodology used by states to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part, close quote. now taken together the law prohibits you from con training state flexibility around the definition of quote consistently underperforming, yet your
proposal does just that. so help me. why would you violate the statute in your proposed rule making and give a deaf sigs when the every student succeeds act prohibits you from doing so and requires you to leave that up to the states. why did you do that in. >> to be clear, in your regulation, consistently underperforming is defined by the state using goals and targets that the state would set. again, our role, we believe, is to try to gather feedback, which we did, and based on that input we put forward is proposed rule that is out for comment. but we were careful to comply with the letter of the law and consistently underperforming is left to states to define with their own goals and targets. >> i would ask you to go back and look at your rule because i think it does prescribe. and i think you're setting yourself and the department up for a lawsuit that you will lose. i don't know who is going to
file it, but somebody will. and you talked earlier about legislative intent. i'm giving you legislative intent right now. you need to go back and look at your rule because it clearly violates the letter of the statute in prescribing. it needs to totally leave this up to the states. and in any way you prescribe to the states how they make that determination, you are clearly in violation of the statute. i'm asking you to go back and look at your rule, hear what a member of this committee, that's a strong pro-p po-po poponent o is telling you. and i think if you do, if you go back and look at it fairly, you're going to see that you are in violation of the statute. i don't want you to be in violation of the statute. i don't think you want to be in violation of the statute. but we have a consistent pattern of the administration in putting out regulations after they've been warned that that you're in
violation of the statute as written by congress. and somebody has to file a lawsuit. here's what happens when a lawsuit is filed. you spend a lot of resources, the people that filed the lawsuit spend a lot of resources and every part of those resources is a penny that didn't go to educating a child. we want every resource we can bring to bear to educate children in the country. some smart lawyer that's working with you is taking you in a direction that the statute clearly prohibits you from going. and as someone that wants this to work, i'm telling you go back and look at you rule. i think you're in violation of the statute. >> i appreciate the feedback. we'll look at the rule. but i want to underscore states will set the goals and targets from which the determination of consistently underperforming will be made. >> we're going to hold you to
that. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. rokita. >> thank you, chairman. thank you mr. secretary. i want to continue on this line of questioning with regarding your rules. you recall that under the old s and s rule that we differentiate between targeted schools and school wide schools. and targeted schools had three specific tests for schools that were what, less than 40% of low income. and then the school wide group was for schools that were more than 40% kids. yeah, more than 40% schools. and you acknowledge, don't you, that under essa, every student succeeds act, that the methodology for distributing state and local funds to school is just to be fair and equitable without regard to the receipt of title one funds.
we got rid of the targeted tests and have the school wide tests for all of s and s. >> with the core fact that the federal money -- >> it's the school test for all s and s. your rule has a methodology applied to it that calls for title one schools to receive as much in per pup l funding as the average amount of per pup l funding as received by the district's nontitle one schools. we specifically put prohibition in the new law that says you're not to apply met dolling, yet you do. how are you not directly in contact with our legislative intent, similar to what mr. berm was pointing out? >> to clarify on the time line. we have a proposed rule, feedback was given, the rule was adjusted and we continue to receive input and feedback and do not have currently a rule out for public comment.
>> does that mean you won't have an methodology. >> i want to be clear there's not currently a proposed rule out for comment. >> you do realize you're in direct conflict with legislative intent. >> no. we do not prescribe the methodology. the methodology is left to districts. districts could use a waited student funding approach, could use an approach that is based on the traditional assignment of staff model. so we don't prescribe the methodology. what we were trying to do in the rule that was discussed is ensure that districts are undeed using the money in a way that was supplemented and not -- >> do you agree that the only requirement in the every student succeeds act regarding the methodology or the distribution of a and s funds is that it be fair and equitable and agnostic
as to a school's title one status? that was the intent. i was on comp committee and i helped write the law. that's the legislative intent. >> the clear history -- >> i'm not talking about history. i'm talking about the new law >> the language is clear that the note that the federal dollars will be supplemental. >> the methodology around that, the only requirement is that we have to be agnostic as to a school's title one status, in other words be fair and equitable. >> if the district is using the federal dollars in a way that supplements rather than supplants local obligations. >> we're defining what supplemental means. we're taking the school wide tests applying it to all of s and s and in doing that, the only requirement is that a district's method for al gaiting
state and local funds be agnostic to the school's title one status, agreed? >> not if they're supplanting. there are two things. there is the question of the district's methodology, which is up to the district. and then there's the question of whether or not the federal dollars are being used in a way that is in fact supplemental. and that's the plain language of the statute. >> it seems like the department and you sir are maybe using some compareability attempts back door to s and s. >> no. because that's focused on services and we're focused on allocation of funds. >> i don't think so. the crs document. are you familiar with that document? explains how your supplement and nonsupplant proposal is a back door proposal and they walk through the legislative his
think during congress's deliberations 0 what became essa. and they said that essa did not change the language when determining expenditures for people from state and local funds. nevertheless the proposed regulations require la's to use actual teacher salaries. and i have to yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. wahlberg. >> thank you for being here. the discussions, the questioning that's going on is important for us to do. northwest ordinance stated about education, religion, morally knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of man kind. schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. that's not in your u.s. contusion. that is in the michigan constitution taking high priority for the necessity of having schools and education
encouraged so that people be happy and productive. and so our discussion today, as we've passed essa, was really intent to roll back, to roll back the power authority, direction, control of the federal government and to really give, as we've talked about at least in a bipartisan way, the fun quotient back, the exciting quotient back to educators in the classroom. school board members on the board, parents with dreams and aspirations for their kids to know that education is a neat, beautiful, fun and productive priority in civil